Connect with us

News

SpaceX CEO Elon Musk explains why Blue Origin’s Starship lawsuit makes no sense

The battle between NASA and Blue Origin over SpaceX's HLS Starship Moon lander continues. (SpaceX/Blue Origin)

Published

on

For the first time since SpaceX competitor Blue Origin took NASA to federal court after losing a Moon lander contract to Starship and a protest over that loss, unsealed documents have finally revealed the argument Jeff Bezos’ space startup is focusing on in court.

After the details broke in new court documents filed on Wednesday, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk weighed in on Twitter to offer his take on why the arguments Blue Origin has hinged its lawsuit on make very little sense.

While one seemingly significant portion of the main complaint claiming to reveal “additional substantial errors” in SpaceX’s Starship HLS proposal was almost fully redacted, most of the opening argument is legible. In short, Blue Origin appears to have abandoned the vast majority of arguments it threw about prior to suing NASA and the US government and is now almost exclusively hinging its case on the claim that SpaceX violated NASA’s procurement process by failing to account for a specific kind of prelaunch review before every HLS-related Starship launch.

For NASA’s HLS competition, SpaceX proposed to create a custom variant of Starship capable of serving as a single-stage-to-orbit crewed Moon lander with the help of the rest of the Starship fleet – including Super Heavy boosters, cargo/tanker Starships, and a depot or storage ship. SpaceX would begin a Moon landing campaign by launching a (likely heavily modified) depot Starship into a stable Earth orbit. Anywhere from 8 to 14 Starship tanker missions – each carrying around 100-150 tons of propellant – would then gradually fill that depot ship over the course of no more than six or so months. Once filled, an HLS lander would launch to orbit, refill its tanks from the depot ship, and make its way to an eccentric lunar orbit to rendezvous with NASA’s Orion spacecraft and three Artemis astronauts.

Advertisement

As Blue Origin has exhaustively reminded anyone within earshot for the last five months, SpaceX’s Starship Moon lander proposal is extremely complex and NASA is taking an undeniable risk (of delays, not for astronauts) by choosing SpaceX. Nevertheless, NASA’s Kathy Lueders and a source evaluation panel made it abundantly clear in public selection statement that SpaceX’s proposal was by far the most competent, offering far a far superior management approach and technical risk no worse than Blue Origin’s far smaller, drastically less capable lander.

The bulk of Blue Origin’s argument appears to be that its National Team Lander proposal was drastically disadvantaged by the fact that SpaceX may or may not have incorrectly planned for just three ‘flight readiness reviews’ (FRRs) for each 16-launch HLS Starship mission. While heavily redacted, Blue Origin wants a judge to believe that contrary to the US Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) fair assessment that such a small issue is incredibly unlikely to have changed the competition’s outcome, it would have “been able to propose a substantially lower price” for its lander. To be clear, a flight readiness review is an admittedly important part of NASA’s safety culture, but it ultimately amounts to paperwork and doublechecks over the course of a day or two of meetings.

All else equal, the need to complete an FRR before a launch is incredibly unlikely to cause more than a few days of delays in a worst-case scenario and would have next to no cost impact. There is no reasonable way to argue that being allowed to complete some launches without an FRR would have singlehandedly allowed Blue Origin to “[engineer] and [propose] an entirely different architecture.” Nevertheless, that’s exactly what the company attempts to argue – that it would have radically and completely changed the design it spent more than half a billion dollars sketching out if it had only been able to skip a few reviews.

Curiously, Blue Origin nevertheless does make a few coherent and seemingly fact-based arguments in the document. Perhaps most notably, it claims that when NASA ultimately concluded that it didn’t have funds for even a single award (a known fact) and asked SpaceX – its first choice – to make slight contract modifications to make the financial side of things work, NASA consciously chose to waive the need for an FRR before every HLS Starship launch. Only via purported cost savings from those waived reviews, Blue Origin claims, was NASA able to afford SpaceX’s proposal – which, it’s worth noting, was more than twice as cheap as the next cheapest option (Blue Origin).

Advertisement

Ultimately, it thus appears that Blue Origin may have a case to make that NASA awarded SpaceX the HLS Option A contract despite a handful of errors that violated contracting rules and the HLS solicitation. Relative to just about any other possible issue, though, it’s hard not to perceive the problems Blue Origin may or may have correctly pointed out as anything more than marginal and extraordinarily unlikely to have changed the outcome in Blue’s favor had they been rectified before the award. Most importantly, even if Blue Origin’s argument is somehow received favorably and a judge orders NASA to overturn its SpaceX HLS award and reconsider all three proposals, it’s virtually inconceivable that even that best-case outcome would result in Blue Origin receiving a contract of any kind.

Eric Ralph is Teslarati's senior spaceflight reporter and has been covering the industry in some capacity for almost half a decade, largely spurred in 2016 by a trip to Mexico to watch Elon Musk reveal SpaceX's plans for Mars in person. Aside from spreading interest and excitement about spaceflight far and wide, his primary goal is to cover humanity's ongoing efforts to expand beyond Earth to the Moon, Mars, and elsewhere.

Advertisement
Comments

News

Tesla Model Y L gets biggest hint yet that it’s coming to the U.S.

Over the past week, a noticeable wave of American Tesla influencers descended on China and Australia, each posting in-depth YouTube reviews of the Model Y L within days of one another.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla China

The Tesla Model Y L is perhaps the most wanted vehicle in the company’s lineup in the United States, especially now that it is void of a true family vehicle with the removal of the Model X.

In China, Tesla currently offers a longer, more family-friendly version of the Model Y, known as the Model Y L, which is longer in terms of its wheelbase and larger in terms of interior space, making it the perfect option for those with a need for a tad more room than what the all-electric crossover offers in its Standard, Premium, and Performance trims.

However, there seems to be a hint that the Model Y L could be on its way to the United States. Over the past week, a noticeable wave of American Tesla influencers descended on China and Australia, each posting in-depth YouTube reviews of the Model Y L within days of one another:

The timing has sparked some intense speculation as to whether Tesla is quietly preparing to bring the long-wheelbase, three-row family SUV to North America after months of requests from fans.

The Model Y L stretches the wheelbase by about five inches compared to the standard Model Y.

This delivers dramatically more rear legroom, optional captain’s chairs in the second row, and a true six- or seven-seat configuration ideal for growing families. Reviewers praise its refined ride, upgraded interior features like a rear touchscreen and premium audio, and competitive range—up to roughly 466 miles in some configurations.

Many observers see the coordinated influencer trip as more than a coincidence. Tesla China appears to have hosted the group, possibly tied to the Beijing Auto Show, giving U.S.-focused creators early access to hands-on footage aimed squarely at North American audiences.

Tesla Model Y lineup expansion signals an uncomfortable reality for consumers

Tesla watchers are quick to point out this isn’t the first time such a pattern has emerged.

Just months earlier, American influencers were similarly invited to China to test-drive the refreshed Model Y Performance. Those videos dropped in the lead-up to the variant’s U.S. rollout, generating exactly the kind of pre-launch hype that helped smooth its September arrival in American showrooms.

The parallel is obviously hard to ignore, as Tesla has used overseas influencer trips before as a low-key way to build anticipation without formal announcements. With the Model Y L potentially hitting the U.S. market late this year, according to CEO Elon Musk, the timing would make sense.

Tesla Model Y L might not come to the U.S., and it’s a missed opportunity

Of course, it could still be coincidental. Tesla regularly invites creators to its Shanghai factory and events for broader promotional purposes, and the Model Y L has been on sale in China for some time. No official word has come from Tesla or Elon Musk about U.S. availability, pricing, or timing.

Import tariffs, regulatory hurdles, and production priorities at Fremont or the new Mexican Gigafactory could still delay or alter any stateside plans.

Even so, the buzz is real. U.S. families have long asked for a more spacious, three-row Tesla SUV that doesn’t require stepping up to the larger Model X.

If the influencer campaign is any indication, the Model Y L—or a close North American cousin—could finally answer that call. For now, American Tesla fans are watching closely and wondering whether this latest China trip is just good content… or the opening act for something much bigger stateside.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla begins probing owners on FSD’s navigation errors with small but mighty change

Previously lumped under “Other,” these incidents made it harder for Tesla’s AI team to isolate and prioritize map-related issues in their reinforcement learning models. There was a lot of disagreement on how certain interventions should be reported.

Published

on

Tesla has started probing owners on how often its Full Self-Driving suite has Navigation errors with a small but mighty change last night.

In its latest Software Update, which is Version 2026.2.9.9 featuring Full Self-Driving (Supervised) v14.3.2, Tesla has introduced a targeted improvement to how owners will report interventions.

With the initial rollout of v14.3.2, Tesla introduced a new Intervention Menu that appears when a disengagement occurs. It allowed owners to choose from four different categories: Preference, Comfort, Critical, or Other.

Tesla has voided the Other option and replaced it with a new “Navigation” choice, which seems much more ideal given the complaints owners have had about navigation. This seemingly minor UI tweak, rolled out widely in recent days, marks another step in Tesla’s ongoing effort to refine its autonomous driving stack through precise, crowdsourced data.

Tesla made this change in direct response to longstanding community feedback. For years, FSD users have noted that navigation errors—such as incorrect speed limits, suboptimal routes, or directing the vehicle to a building’s rear entrance instead of the main one—frequently force interventions.

Previously lumped under “Other,” these incidents made it harder for Tesla’s AI team to isolate and prioritize map-related issues in their reinforcement learning models. There was a lot of disagreement on how certain interventions should be reported:

By adding a dedicated “Navigation” label, the company can now tag disengagements more accurately, feeding cleaner data into its neural networks. This supports faster iteration on routing algorithms, map accuracy, and intent-aware navigation.

Community consensus around Tesla’s navigation system has been consistent and candid. While the end-to-end AI driving behavior in v14.x earns widespread acclaim for smoothness and safety, navigation remains FSD’s clearest Achilles’ heel.

Owners frequently cite outdated map data, failure to learn from repeated corrections, and routing decisions that feel less intuitive than Google Maps or Apple Maps. Common complaints include phantom speed-limit changes, inefficient local roads, and poor point-of-interest handling.

Tesla Summon got insanely good in FSD v14.3.2 — Navigation? Not so much

Many drivers report intervening on navigation far more often than on core driving maneuvers, with some estimating it accounts for the majority of disengagements outside of edge cases.

Long-term users note that the same mapping glitches persist across years and software versions, despite thousands of collective miles of feedback. Yet the addition of the “Navigation” option has been met with optimism. It signals Tesla’s commitment to data-driven progress and suggests navigation improvements could arrive sooner.

For a community that already logs millions of FSD miles monthly, this small change could unlock meaningful gains in reliability and user trust—potentially accelerating the path to unsupervised autonomy.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla expands Robotaxi in a way that was long anticipated

Instead, it has to do with the consumer base it offers Robotaxi to, because it has not offered it to everyone in the past.

Published

on

Credit: Grok Imagine

Tesla has expanded Robotaxi in a way that was long anticipated, and it does not have to do with a new, larger geofence in a city where it already offered its partially autonomous ride-hailing suite, or a new city altogether.

Instead, it has to do with the consumer base it offers Robotaxi to, because it has not offered it to everyone in the past.

Tesla has taken a major step forward in its autonomous ride-hailing ambitions with the official launch of the Tesla Robotaxi app for Android users. Released on the Google Play Store on April 24. Titled simply “Tesla Robotaxi,” the app is now available to download directly from Tesla.

This rollout fulfills a long-anticipated expansion that opens the service to hundreds of millions of Android smartphone users who were previously unable to access it on iOS alone.

The app delivers a streamlined, driverless ride experience powered by Tesla’s automated driving technology.

Users sign in with a Tesla Account, view the current service area map within the app, enter a destination, and receive an estimated fare and arrival time before confirming the ride. When a Model Y from the Robotaxi fleet arrives, riders confirm the license plate, enter the vehicle, fasten their seatbelt, and tap “Start Ride” on either the app or the vehicle’s touchscreen.

During the trip, passengers have access to all the same controls that iOS users do, and can adjust climate settings, seat positions, and music while tracking progress on an in-app map. The interface also allows drop-off changes or support requests if needed. After the ride, users exit, close the doors, and submit feedback.

This Android availability directly broadens the rider base for Robotaxi in its initial service areas. Unfortunately, Android users are used to being subject to delayed launches of new features available to Tesla owners.

By removing the iOS-only barrier, Tesla instantly expands the addressable market, enabling far more people to summon and use the autonomous vehicles already operating on public roads.

The move is a foundational requirement for scaling ride volume and gathering the real-world data needed to refine the unsupervised Full Self-Driving system that powers every trip.

For the Robotaxi program itself, the launch signals steady operational progress. It prepares the service for higher utilization rates as the fleet grows and supports the transition from limited early deployments to a more robust network.

Tesla expands Unsupervised Robotaxi service to two new cities

Tesla has indicated that users outside current service areas can sign up at the company’s website for future notifications, pointing to a deliberate, phased geographic rollout.

Looking ahead, the company plans to incorporate Cybercab vehicles to increase fleet capacity and efficiency while continuing to expand service territories. With the Android app now live, Tesla has removed a key adoption hurdle and positioned Robotaxi for the next phase of growth in autonomous urban transportation.

The infrastructure is now in place to support significantly larger rider demand as production and deployment accelerate.

Continue Reading